Lechmere The Psychopath

[Jon Guy]

Duplicate post .........

[Harry D]

Harry, I'm confused. That's genuinely what I did.

First, clicked 'quote'

Then I typed in the gaps. It still came up with my replies in the shaded area.

Regards
Herlock

You've got to remember to separate each quote and close each one with the [*/QUOTE] tag (minus the asterisk).

[Elamarna]

And LLewellyn spoke of immediate death, so we know that it does not fit the bill. So the more likely thing is that there was further damage, unspecified by Llewellyn, just as Phillips tried to avoid to specify Chapmans damage.

Why speculate when we already have a cause of death which fits the statement of Llewellyn.
The press reports say that the details were given. I see that you now speculate such was not the case, to explain away the missing data.

Nor do they in any way deny that any such damage was done, but given that LLewellyn said that the damage done to the area was enough to ensure death and double quick too, the more probable thing is that organs and vessels were severely damaged. That would be to expect with very deep abdomonal wounds inflicted with violence and a longbladed knife directed downwards.[/B]

Do you think that in any way illogical, Steve?

Yes because it is YOUR interpretation that he refers to the abdomenial wounds when saying this.

So you are saying that LLewellyn felt that lethal damage was caused to the abdomen on account of the lack of blood? You are proposing that when he saw that there was blood lacking, he simply predisposed that internal organs and or vessels had been struck, but he did not check before offering his view? Or am I wrong on this, do you mean something entirely different?

Not that simple. He had it seems clear an issue with what he perceive as a lack of blood.
He changed the cause of death to allow for that problem.

No, I really donīt think so, because he qualified his words by saying that aanatomical knowledge was evinced by the damage. And when you cut all the tissue and all the vessels in the neck, that does not tell anybody that anatomical insight has been applied. It less everybody that the killer took no risks at all, that he may have been happily unaware about the placement of all the vessels and so he cut it all.

Actually to cut both sides of the Neck does show knowledge.
However we are back to an opinion that cannot be measured or quantified

The one place where LLewellyns words make sense is the abdomen, where you can deliver a hundred stabs without hitting a single vital part, and where you can aslo deliver a hundred stabs that ALL hit vital parts. That is where anatomy comes into play, not when somebody cuts a neck to the bone.

Your opinion. I disagree.
To kill immediately with a cut in the dark to the abdomen is truly remarkable given that the Aorta and Vena Cava cannot be seen before the first cut and are to a large part protected, lying behind other organs and tissues. To be performed intentionally in the conditions requires a leap of logic I am not prepared to make.

Itīs like saying that the Black Dahlia killer must have had anatomical knowledge because he knew how to cut to kill - he cut the body in two parts at the waist...

No it is not. To cut both sides of the Neck shows knowledge that there are blood vessels on both sides of the Neck and cutting of both is needed to ensure a fast death.

Indeed the cut was only mentioned to give an indication of the depth of any Recorded cuts.

Or to explain that the abdomina cavity was opened up and that the stabds and cuts did NOT reach the omentum only.

No I raised it initially and I know why I did. You may have tried to use it to support your case; unfortunately logic says it cannot be used to say deeper parts were hit.

Of course we had a two day debate over if this was something that Spratling just wrote on his own or if he was told so by LLEWELLYN .

We still donīt know, Iīm afraid.

Spratling says in his report he was given the information by LLEWELLYN; or do you dispute that?
If so I would love to hear the argument and see the supporting data for such.

Yes, indeed. Enough to kill swiftly according to the medico who did the post mortem. But you think that is wrong.

That depends on the interpretation of "vital areas". We disagree on what is meant.

The issue there is that because you will only accept the vital areas as being in the abdomen, if the wounds to the omentum are as deep as they go, then it follows people must be saying these are the vital areas. However as the omentum is not vtal and the "vital areas" can only refer to the abdomen then there must be damage we do not know about. It's circular.

And it is nevertheless the by far likeliest interpretation.

No it is not. It is based on presumed wounds and rejection of known fatal wounds.
That makes it the least likely.

The majority of those who disagree with you will say the "vital areas" means the Neck, and therefore the cut to the omentum is unrelated to the issue of vital areas.

And they will in all probability be wrong.

In your humble opinion.

One to the Neck, two cuts, four major vessels completely severed, death in under 5 minutes. These are historical established facts.

Agreed.

The second set are to the abdomen.

Agreed.


The exact nature of the cuts is unclear.

Not if you ask Gareth. He seems to know exactly what they looked like and so he can rule out that the vital parts were in there.
But you and I seem to agree - none of us think that the abdominal wounds can be described in any great detail at all.


Indeed we still debate where the cuts were and how they looked. A point clearly demonstrated by Jason Payne-James in the Lechmere documentary. And that is only for the surface appearance.

Yes, indeed. We have at least been able to establish that the misleading phrase "there was no damage until the lower abdomen" is a mistake.

Yes such a pharse seems to have come from Llewellyn himself, it shows he could and did make mistakes in his testimony.

There is almost no source data relating to the nature of the internal damage.
All we have is Spratling's report and it mention of the omentum. That is it.

It mentions that the omentum had been cut open, does it not? That means that the skin had also been cut open. All that tells us is that the abdominal cavity had been opened up, allowing for access into it.

It does not say the the omentum had been "cut open" just cut.
And as the omentum is within the abdomenial cavity I do not see why such needs to be stated. It is obvious.
And your actual point is?
Spratling's report is all that gives any detail of the internal injuries. Do you suggest we ignore it?

So could the abdomenial wounds have been deeper and more serious?

Of course they could, but we have no evidence to support such a position and so it's just speculation.

It is true that we do not have it detailed, but we have LLewellyns assertion that the wounds were enough to kill swiftly, and that would not be the case if the wouns did not damage organs and/or vessels, preferably the aorta. We also have LLewellyns statement that the killer seemed versed in anatomy since he was able to hit all the vital parts, and I think he is talking about the abdominal wounds there too.

Again only if we accept YOUR interpretation of Llewellyn.

So one set could and would have definitely killed.
The second set could potentially have done the same, but potentially is the key word.

But LLewellyn was not uncertain at all - he stated that the abdominal wounds would ALSO kill swiftly, and so they do not differ from the neck wounds in that respect. Maybe there is a tie difference involved, but swift is swift.

No he did not. It's how you interpret what he said, not what he actually said, nor what he supported with evidence.

It comes down to personal choice do we accept established historical fact or do we say no I reject that in favour of my gut feeling.

But it is a historical fact that Llewllyn said that the abdominal wounds would kill quickly! It has nthibg at all to do with any gut feeling, and I am not saying that the neck wounds would not kill - of course they would. But the fact of the matter is that we have a medico who states unequivocally that each of the abdominal wounds would kill on their own, and that death would come quickly.
Why on earth would we rule THAT out on a gut feeling? Because this is where the gut feeling reasoning TRULY applies:

No that again is YOUR intpretation. It is not an historically established fact.
Each of the abdomen wounds would kill? Again YOUR interpretation.
Because it is just that a gut feeling. Such cannot take precedence over facts and reality

YOU say that your gut feeling is that LLewellyn was wrong, you admit that this is so and that you have no evidence at all proving that the abdominal wounds were not sufficient to kill quickly.

No it's not Gut feeling, it is a lack of evidence to support his view I base my view on.
And again it's the "you can't prove they didn't " chant.

I do NOT say that my gut feeling is that the abdominal wounds came first and were lethal - I am instead leaning against the medcio who had the case in hand, and who very clearly said that the abdominal wounds came first and were sufficient to kill quickly.

You are basing your view on wounds that are not described, on a opinion not backed by evidence. Therefore without such it is a gut feeling.

How did these facts pass comfortably into a verdict of ME being the one going for my gut feeling and YOU going for the facts?

It is the other way around, Steve!

No not at all.

You still seem to think that quoting Llewellyn is enough.
However in this post you have already highlighted one major mistake he made at the inquest. Such suggests he cannot be read as being accurate.



Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Harry, I'm confused. That's genuinely what I did.

First, clicked 'quote'

Then I typed in the gaps. It still came up with my replies in the shaded area.

Regards
Herlock

[Harry D]

I don't know how to separate

It's

individual parts of a quote into shaded areas then an unshaded reply Harry.

this

I really am useless at stuff like this!

simple

[Herlock Sholmes]

What is so difficult about using the Quote feature as it was intended?

I don't know how to separate individual parts of a quote into shaded areas then an unshaded reply Harry. I really am useless at stuff like this!

Regards
Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock Sholmes; How could he have known, as he stood waiting for Paul, that a beat Constable mightn't have arrived on the scene( there has to be a reasonable chance, using that route to work everyday, that he knew that the location was on a police beat?)

By timing Neil.

How do we know that he had a watch to check the time that Neil was due even if he knew Neil's due arrival time in the first place? If he had a watch how could he have read the time in the darkness of `Bucks Row?

How could he have known in an ill-lit backstreet that Paul's footsteps weren't those of a Constable until he came into view?

By how Paul hurried along - as he himself put it.

Fair point.

How could he have known that, 'potential' Constable Paul or Mizen or any other Constable who became involved, wouldn't have searched him and found the knife?

By producing the ruse about another PC being in Bucks Row - who had cleared the carmen and sent them on their way.

How could CL be certain that he didnt have a spot or two of blood on him. And before you say, 'he would have said that he'd gotten blood on him checking for signs of life,' what if the spot of blood was on his face or his neck or his upper arm?

He could not have known. But it was dark, and if there was no blood pressure when he cut, he would not get any blood on his face. He could nevertheless say "I wiped my face with my hand", "Mr Paul here must have touched me on the shoulder" etcetera. But letīs keep in mind that there can NEVER be a foolproof story - he would need to rely on luck to an extent as any liar has to.

And then Paul would have said 'I never touched him.' Also, 'wiping' doesn't create the same Mark as a spot or a speck. And let's remember, all these risk were easily avoidable by CL simply walking away.

And Fish, do I detect a little sarcasm from you as you've twice called me Sherlock instead of Herlock

Actually no - I was unaware of that. Itīs a simple enough mistake to make, but I would think it a commending such at any rate.
You CAN detect sarcasm every now and then, but not this time!

Fair play on the sarcasm bit Fish

[Fisherman]

Er, no worries, I feel like I'm intruding on a private conversation myself.
But since I have your attention...you have said several times that Lllewellyn stated the abdominal wounds came first and would be quickly fatal, eg;

"I do NOT say that my gut feeling is that the abdominal wounds came first and were lethal - I am instead leaning against the medcio who had the case in hand, and who very clearly said that the abdominal wounds came first and were sufficient to kill quickly."

I may well have missed it (this is quite a long and confusing thread!) but can you point me to where the doctor himself says this, please - I'm struggling to scour the press reports on my tiny phone.

There is no direct evidence from Llewellyn himself saying that the abdominal wounds came first. But we have the coroner summing up the Nichols case saying that this was so, we have the same coroner reiterating it in the Chapman case (where Baxter said that this was a thing that differed btween the murders if Llewellyn was correct) and we have Abberline referring to how LLewellyn opted for abdomen first in his (Abberlines) 19:th September report.

[Joshua Rogan]

Sorry to butt in, Joshua.

Er, no worries, I feel like I'm intruding on a private conversation myself.
But since I have your attention...you have said several times that Lllewellyn stated the abdominal wounds came first and would be quickly fatal, eg;

"I do NOT say that my gut feeling is that the abdominal wounds came first and were lethal - I am instead leaning against the medcio who had the case in hand, and who very clearly said that the abdominal wounds came first and were sufficient to kill quickly."

I may well have missed it (this is quite a long and confusing thread!) but can you point me to where the doctor himself says this, please - I'm struggling to scour the press reports on my tiny phone.

[Harry D]

What is so difficult about using the Quote feature as it was intended?

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes; How could he have known, as he stood waiting for Paul, that a beat Constable mightn't have arrived on the scene( there has to be a reasonable chance, using that route to work everyday, that he knew that the location was on a police beat?)

By timing Neil.

How could he have known in an ill-lit backstreet that Paul's footsteps weren't those of a Constable until he came into view?

By how Paul hurried along - as he himself put it.

How could he have known that, 'potential' Constable Paul or Mizen or any other Constable who became involved, wouldn't have searched him and found the knife?

By producing the ruse about another PC being in Bucks Row - who had cleared the carmen and sent them on their way.

How could CL be certain that he didnt have a spot or two of blood on him. And before you say, 'he would have said that he'd gotten blood on him checking for signs of life,' what if the spot of blood was on his face or his neck or his upper arm?

He could not have known. But it was dark, and if there was no blood pressure when he cut, he would not get any blood on his face. He could nevertheless say "I wiped my face with my hand", "Mr Paul here must have touched me on the shoulder" etcetera. But letīs keep in mind that there can NEVER be a foolproof story - he would need to rely on luck to an extent as any liar has to.

And Fish, do I detect a little sarcasm from you as you've twice called me Sherlock instead of Herlock

Actually no - I was unaware of that. Itīs a simple enough mistake to make, but I would think it a commending such at any rate.
You CAN detect sarcasm every now and then, but not this time!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apologies to all for how my reply is set out. It's not very clear. Hope you can understand it. I'll try colour next time.

Some of my replies are in the shaded area.

Herlock

[Fisherman]

Hi Joshua

It seems clear that his first opinion was the Neck which he later changed.

Let us remember that on the 31st he was still of the opinion that the murder may have taken place elsewhere, the reason for this was the apparent lack of blood.
It seems the overriding issue for Llewellyn was this lack of blood and when it became apparent the body had not been moved he changed his mind on the cause of death. In an attempt to explain this away.

Sounds a bit like the "magic Bulliet" to me.


Steve

He examined the woman and found that the blood had seeped into the abdominal cavity, explaining things and making him opt for the abdomen having come first. Thatīs how "magic" it is.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock Sholmes: I'm sorry Fish but there you go again. 'Much as he contributed to the flushing out of `Lechmere.' How many times?

As many as it takes, obviously.

He didn't 'flush' CL out. CL had, as I've said numerous time, ample time to walk, or even run away to freedom. Absolute, definate, categorical freedom. But he didn't. He waited for Paul to arrive. He called him over. He showed him the body. Why? Because he had absolutely nothing to feel guilty about. This is about as obvious as it gets I'm afraid.

He stayed put. If he was the killer, he could not anticipate that Paul would tell the story in the papers. Once he did, that flushed Lechmere out.
Thatīs how it works, Sherlock.

You can't possibly know that that's the reason that CL attended the Inquest.

You are basically saying that no criminal will ever stay put, they will always and categorically flee the scene, regardless if they feel that it involves great risk to get caught.
Thatīs not how it works, Sherlock.

But there was zero risk in CL fleeing

The absolute majority of criminals wil flee or try to flee. Some will not. There is no established ratio, but it is there.

Agreed, sort of. Bit at the very least we would have to say that it's overwhelmingly likely that a guilty man would flee, especially when he doesnt have to make a 50-50 decision say.



'But if he had not come forward....' what can you possibly mean 'he would not become uninteresting...' He would not have been 'interesting' at all because if he had not come forward no one would have ever heard of him! The only reason that we have heard of him is that he did come forward. I'm utterly baffled (or am I?) how you can find this suspicious.

Robert Paul gave an interview, remember? That is how we would have heard of him.



If he had fled, we donīt know what would have happened. If he had succeded in fleeing, we would probably not have heard of him. If he had gotten caught, we would have heard of him.
We will never know what applies, but we can certainly not work from any certainty that he would have succeeded in fleeing, because that would equal the misconception that all criminals flee.

Why cant we be certain that he'd have succeeded in fleeing? How could it have failed? Walking through the deserted streets of Whitechapel in the wee small hours? Even if he'd seen a Constable there'd have been no cause to suspect him.
I can't think of any reasonable scenario where 'fleeing' fails. Can anyone?

If they KNEW they would get away uncaught every time, you would have a point. Since this does not apply, your point becomes a very wobbly one.

Nope. It's pretty much cast iron.

Everything about CL's actions that night scream 'innocent witness.

No it does not. But you may want to ponder how a killer who has decided to bluff it out as is suggested for Lechmere, may have been quite unlikely to show Paul his knife, to rub his own face in Nicholsī blood, to tell Mizen "the bitch got what she begged for" or something like that. Beleive it or not, but a killer bluffing it ut will do all he can to give the impression of an innocent witness. But there may be details where this does not work. Like how he disagreed with Mizen about what was said between the two men - if he lied to Mizen, the best he could do in retrospect would be not to acknowledge it. For example.

How could he have known, as he stood waiting for Paul, that a beat Constable mightn't have arrived on the scene( there has to be a reasonable chance, using that route to work everyday, that he knew that the location was on a police beat?)

How could he have known in an ill-lit backstreet that Paul's footsteps weren't those of a Constable until he came into view?

How could he have known that, 'potential' Constable Paul or Mizen or any other Constable who became involved, wouldn't have searched him and found the knife?

How could CL be certain that he didnt have a spot or two of blood on him. And before you say, 'he would have said that he'd gotten blood on him checking for signs of life,' what if the spot of blood was on his face or his neck or his upper arm?

And Fish, do I detect a little sarcasm from you as you've twice called me Sherlock instead of Herlock

Some of my replies are in the shaded area.

[Fisherman]

Morning Advertiser 1st Sept;

Dr Llewellyn, who was formerly a house surgeon of the London Hospital, has given his opinion as to the manner in which the murder was committed. He said that the woman was killed by the cuts on the throat - there are two, and the throat is divided back to the vertebrae."

" ... who was formerly a house surgeon of the London Hospital..."

That was in 1875. He earned his honours as an obstetrician in 1873. Apparently, he was a bit more versatile than some will have it.

Sorry to butt in, Joshua.